[OSM-legal-talk] CC Attribution Share Alike License with OSMF exception

Brian Quinion openstreetmap at brian.quinion.co.uk
Sat Sep 6 00:44:50 BST 2008

>> OK, so either not OSMF (but a group setup for the purpose) or OSMF
>> with better protections for who can be a board member.  How about a
>> group made up of interested parties with a minimum amount of data
>> submitted to OSM... :-)

> See, you're starting to walk the path towards non-freedom already.
> You're starting to talk of criteria, of restrictions, of authority.

Ah, but since I'm only suggesting adding to CC-by-SA not replacing it
it can't make the freedom situation any worse :-)

> BUT to get the more paranoid people among us to accept such a body with
> these rights, you will have to set up a huge and complicated process
> with checks and balances and positions of power and well-defined
> decision making processes and all - a real ugly beast if you ask me.

Yes, from the responses so far I guess that is exactly what would
happen.  But on the other hand that is exactly what we seem to have at
the moment - a bureaucratic mess.

I suppose my feeling is that a group with the ability to grant waivers
makes the project 'fail safe' since the worst that happens is that the
data gets given away.  With the current situation we could end up in a
situation where people couldn't use it at all. Indeed I think we have
already reached that point - just look at all the discussion about how
we go about changing the license at all, we are tying ourselves in
legal knots.

Yes, someone could come in and find a loop hole, but it would be
public, it would be messy and it would be bad publicity for whoever
did it and I'd say the benefits outweigh the risks.

> "Unhappy with something? Just submit it, in written form, with three
> copies, to our under-secretary for member queries, and it might just get
> on the agenda for next year's AGM..."
> I am not a control freak. I think formal decisions, votes, authority and
> all that should be avoided wherever possible. As long as we can manage
> with our "do-ocracy", let us do that.

But there is always CC-By-SA so nothing is lost... unless you think it
is possible to get everyone to move over to PD?  otherwise I think we
need a middle route because there will always be special cases and the
project as a whole needs a way to deal with them because at the moment
it clearly does not.  A new license (however carefully written) is
unlikely to solve that!


More information about the legal-talk mailing list